Laws Question? Ask here!

castie

Munster game tonight.

Penalty at the end inside Munster half and ref said there was time for lineout with 30 secs left.

Even though its completely out of range, could Warwick point to the posts waste 1 minute then aim a shot into the stand to end the game?

karlitob

almighty1 wrote: »

May already have been asked but what about this.

Im running along with the ball and foresee that Im gonna get smashed by a couple of the oppostion players. I jump into the air just before they make contact and they take me out in the air.

Do I get a penalty?

An emphatic NO!!! In fact, I'd give you a yellow for jumping a tackle. It is SO dangerous to jump into a tackle. Its rugby, not American football.

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

In theory yes. Sure though the 'smash' will be worse if you are in the air?

Nothing to do with 'theory'. Its against the law - cant jump a tackle - dangerous play.

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

There is no specific law in relation to jumping a tackle - it is not illgeal. However I would say it comes under law 10.4 (k) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure. Penalty: Penalty Kick

It is illegal - dangerous play.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

Munster game tonight.

Penalty at the end inside Munster half and ref said there was time for lineout with 30 secs left.

Even though its completely out of range, could Warwick point to the posts waste 1 minute then aim a shot into the stand to end the game?

No, my understanding is that if you point to the point you have to kick for the post. Obviously, miskicks etc are taken into account.

If someone did that, I'd let play go on.

Also, why would you choose that way to waste 30 seconds. Go for the lineout and then kick into touch. If you can't rely on your lineout then go for a scrum and then kick it away. If you can't rely on either of those, then take a tap penalty and set up a ruck, maul or indeed run the other way and kick the ball into touch.

karlitob

bazzajf wrote: »

I have a question relating to the laws of the game.

If a player takes a drop at goal and his drop goal attempt bounces 5 yards short of the goalposts and then goes over the crossbar, what happens?

Nothing - you missed, play on. Ball in open play. If it crosses the dead ball, then 22 out. If it stops in the goal area, then whoever touches down gets 22 out or try?

bazzajf wrote: »

My second comment is an observation, I am uncomfortable with the instances when referees allow ball-carrying players to get up and continue running after being brought down by exclaiming "NOT HELD", this is in direct conflict with the law directing tacklers to release the tackled player straight away. A grey area which the IRB needs to address.

Not really, if they are not held in the tackle then they are entitled to get up because its not a tackle. A tackle is when a ball carrier is held on the ground by an opposition player. If the ref has shouted 'Not Held' then its not a tackle. If he shouts 'Release' then release. I think it is well ref'd actually. My observation is that players who arent held in the tackle usually have a lot of momentum and are able to get up easily. It allows the game to flow so they can offload.

castie

karlitob wrote: »

No, my understanding is that if you point to the point you have to kick for the post. Obviously, miskicks etc are taken into account.

If someone did that, I'd let play go on.

Also, why would you choose that way to waste 30 seconds. Go for the lineout and then kick into touch. If you can't rely on your lineout then go for a scrum and then kick it away. If you can't rely on either of those, then take a tap penalty and set up a ruck, maul or indeed run the other way and kick the ball into touch.

I cant see anything in the laws that you must aim for the posts though.

The reason to pick it is thats its guaranteed. The other options you mentioned come with risk.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

I cant see anything in the laws that you must aim for the posts though.

The reason to pick it is thats its guaranteed. The other options you mentioned come with risk.

Law 21.5 a - read the laws. Forfeit kick and penalty for ungentlemanly conduct.

Guaranteed?? There is no play guaranteed in rugby. If you've lasted 80 mins and can't pick and go then you shouldn't be on a rugby pitch. The safest option here is tap penalty (ball on ground for tap) and set up a ruck, then kick direct to touch. Why would you kick the ball away if you want to secure it?

Downtime

karlitob wrote: »

It is illegal - dangerous play.

Id love to see the reference in law as I cant find it

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

Id love to see the reference in law as I cant find it

Law 10.4 m

Downtime

karlitob wrote: »

Law 10.4 m

Which is what I already quoted (incorrect reference m not k) It does not specifically relate to a tackle or jumping a tackle which is what I am after, although could be applied as I already said.

castie

karlitob wrote: »

Law 21.5 a - read the laws. Forfeit kick and penalty for ungentlemanly conduct.

Guaranteed?? There is no play guaranteed in rugby. If you've lasted 80 mins and can't pick and go then you shouldn't be on a rugby pitch. The safest option here is tap penalty (ball on ground for tap) and set up a ruck, then kick direct to touch. Why would you kick the ball away if you want to secure it?

21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK

(a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.


Sorry what? How about you read the laws before spouting crap to people.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK

(a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.


Sorry what? How about you read the laws before spouting crap to people.

Keep you knickers on - ding dong. If you looked at Law 21.5 b) directly underneath my incorrect Law 21.5 a) you would see what you're looking for. But again, as I say, read the laws. If you did, you would have read that

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

Which is what I already quoted (incorrect reference m not k) It does not specifically relate to a tackle or jumping a tackle which is what I am after, although could be applied as I already said.

I didn't question you as to whether you was correct or not. I said it was illegal after your quote. You asked where was the law. I gave back the correct law. I didn't say there was a law that specifically stated you could not jump a tackle.

karlitob

castie wrote: »

The reason to pick it is thats its guaranteed. The other options you mentioned come with risk.

Have you ever even played rugby? If you have you would know that its not a 'guaranteed' play. They all come with risk.

And before you get another set of knickers in a twist, I have no issue with those who have not played rugby.

Downtime

karlitob wrote: »

I didn't question you as to whether you was correct or not. I said it was illegal after your quote. You asked where was the law. I gave back the correct law. I didn't say there was a law that specifically stated you could not jump a tackle.

Keep your knickers on!!!

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

Keep your knickers on!!!

No, you keep your knickers on! They're obviously off.

castie

karlitob wrote: »

Keep you knickers on - ding dong. If you looked at Law 21.5 b) directly underneath my incorrect Law 21.5 a) you would see what you're looking for. But again, as I say, read the laws. If you did, you would have read that

Hmmm still dont see where your getting a penalty from.
The indictation to kick at goal is telling the ref your going to take a shot.
After that you must take a shot. It says nothing about your aiming of the shot as indicating a kick at goal is saying your going to take a kick from the tee.

But sure go make up your own rules...

RuggieBear

karlitob,
you need to reign yourself in. if you are rude one more time on this thread you will be banned.Keep it civil. debate the posts not the poster

karlitob

castie wrote: »

Hmmm still dont see where your getting a penalty from.
The indictation to kick at goal is telling the ref your going to take a shot.
After that you must take a shot. It says nothing about your aiming of the shot as indicating a kick at goal is saying your going to take a kick from the tee.

But sure go make up your own rules...

Well firstly, and once again for the ignorant, there are no rules only laws. And that of course is the point.

Law 21.5
If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at the goal.


My original reply to your post was that "my understanding was" that you must shoot for goal if you have given an intention to shoot for goal. My next post to your response was that if a player, who intended to kick at goal but instead drove the ball into the stand, I would give a penalty against the kicker under two laws:

Law 10.4 m) Ungentlemanly conduct. You intended to kick at goal, you must, if you don't, I'll penalise you.

Also,
Law10.2 b) A player must not intentionally waste time.

This was your original question - can a player waste 30 seconds intentioning to kick at goal and instead kicking into the stands.

If, as a moderator, you're not even going to bother reading posts carefully especially in response to your own questions then I would suggest that you don't continue as a moderator. Also, your tone is inflammatory.

karlitob

RuggieBear wrote: »

karlitob,
you need to reign yourself in. if you are rude one more time on this thread you will be banned.Keep it civil. debate the posts not the poster

Thanks. Will do. I presume this goes for Downtime and castie too? Look at post number 493.

Downtime

castie wrote: »

Hmmm still dont see where your getting a penalty from.
The indictation to kick at goal is telling the ref your going to take a shot.
After that you must take a shot. It says nothing about your aiming of the shot as indicating a kick at goal is saying your going to take a kick from the tee.

But sure go make up your own rules...

Castie - it is a kick at goal. You must aim the kick at goal as per 21.5(b) If you don't it is a scrum to the opposition where you kicked from as it is illegal to place kick for touch. If the ball ends up in touch as a result of a kick at goal it is a defending lineout.

karlitob

Downtime wrote: »

Castie - it is a kick at goal. You must aim the kick at goal as per 21.5(b) If you don't it is a scrum to the opposition where you kicked from as it is illegal to place kick for touch. If the ball ends up in touch as a result of a kick at goal it is a defending lineout.

Not sure where you're getting a scrum for the opposition from. If it is illegal to kick for touch if you intention to goal, why would the ref award a scrum. If,as you say, it is illegal to kick to touch after you intention for a goal, and it does end up in touch, why is it a touch and not brought back for a scrum.


The answer has been given. You must aim for goal if you intention. Penalty against you if you do not under ungentlemanly conduct rules. Please move on.

Shelflife

The answer has been given. You must aim for goal if you intention. Penalty against you if you do not under ungentlemanly conduct rules. Please move on.

Karlitob as far as im aware you are not the ref of this forum, just because you tell us to move on doesnt make it so. i hope that you dont ref in the same manner. you need to give people/teams some latitude otherwise you will stifle the game/forum.

You should know that most of the laws are interperted by the refs and therefore we will get different outcomes.

you classify it as ungentlemanly conduct and give a pen. castie sees it differently and gives a scrum or lineout, neither of you right or wrong its down to your individual interpertations and what you feel happened at that time.

Risteard

I think Karlitob is right on the goal kick one. I remember playing an U14 match and as the opposition had gone into a little huddle I discussed the possibility of just tipping the ball of the tee and running with it with my kicker. The ref overheard and said he has to make a genuine effort to score with the kick.

castie

Downtime wrote: »

Castie - it is a kick at goal. You must aim the kick at goal as per 21.5(b) If you don't it is a scrum to the opposition where you kicked from as it is illegal to place kick for touch. If the ball ends up in touch as a result of a kick at goal it is a defending lineout.

Pretty sure I saw a game before when someone place kicked for the opposite corner for the winger to catch and score. This is where I was getting my thinking for.

The way I see it you agree to a kick at goal i.e kicking from the tee.
I wouldnt of considered that the law did mention aim at goal also but I can see where your coming from.

Downtime

Here is the law in relation to kicking at goal:

21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK
(a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.
(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
(c) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.
(d) If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal but takes a drop kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.
(e) If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands. A further penalty is not awarded for the infringement.
(f) The kicker may place the ball directly on the ground or on sand, sawdust or a kicking tee approved by the Union.

Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

daveharnett

bazzajf wrote: »

My second comment is an observation, I am uncomfortable with the instances when referees allow ball-carrying players to get up and continue running after being brought down by exclaiming "NOT HELD", this is in direct conflict with the law directing tacklers to release the tackled player straight away. A grey area which the IRB needs to address.

No conflict in law here imo. Most of the controversial decisions in this area are down to indecisive reffing rather than a problem with the law.

Tackle = held+grounded, not grounded+held. If a defender has got a hold of the ball carrier at the instant the ball carrier hits the ground, a tackle has been completed, and everybody must immediately release everything.

The only grey here relates to the definition of "held" (does a pinch-hold of the ball carrier's big toe count?). There's an easy way to eliminate that ambiguity: when I'm reffing, I shout "tackle" whenever I see one, so the players know where they stand.

daveharnett

almighty1 wrote: »

Im running along with the ball and foresee that Im gonna get smashed by a couple of the oppostion players. I jump into the air just before they make contact and they take me out in the air.

Do I get a penalty?

Depends really.
If the result is dangerous to you, then it's a penalty against you.
If the result is dangerous to the would-be tackler, it's penalty+card against you.
If the tackler spears/tips you when he could have avoided doing so, original penalty reversed + card against him.

Hurdling over an arm/tap tackle = play on.

RuggieBear

karlitob wrote: »

If, as a moderator, you're not even going to bother reading posts carefully especially in response to your own questions then I would suggest that you don't continue as a moderator. Also, your tone is inflammatory.

banned.